Hijabi reporter on C4 News and the Nice massacre. Your thoughts?

Are you just intentionally ignoring what I'm saying because you can't actually refute it? Consider these two questions:
1) Were the attacks committed in the name of Islam?
2) Is she overtly advertising Islam by wearing the hijab?
If you agree that the answer to both of these is yes, then it is fairly evident that this is insensitive. And you still haven't answered my point about the NRA, largely I suspect because you agree that that would be insensitive.

I have no idea why you're raising Trump as nothing here remotely pertains to the US elections. But for what it's worse, that's utter nonsense. He is being lambasted in the press constantly as a result of his comments about Muslims, hispanics and plenty of other groups. Hell, his entire campaign may well have been sunk as a result of his comments about groping women.

That is a clearly untrue claim. I'll give you one example; in the Qur'an and Hadith there are numerous uses of a phrase which roughly translates as 'right hand possesses'. The doctrines which use this phrase are fairly universally agreed to say that when a nation is conquered in war, it is acceptable to take possession of and rape the vanquished country's women. Indeed, Muhammad goes so far as to reassure his men that doing so wouldn't count as adultery either.

You're completely missing the point. The Hijab isn't just another item of clothing; it has a very apparent link to Islam. All I'm saying is that blatantly advertising Islam at the same time as reporting on multiple people being killed in the name of Islam, is fairly insensitive. As another analogy, consider the meaning the Swastika has in Hinduism and Buddhism. Would it be acceptable for a Hindu to display a Swastika whilst reporting on an anti-semitic incident? Obviously it wouldn't.

Naturally, I understand why bigoted responses towards Muslims would wear thin and I do sympathise. But this hints towards the larger issue of people conflating criticism of Islam with criticism of Muslims. The latter is bigoted and should be avoided at all costs. Tarring all Muslims with the same brush is simply wrong. On the other hand, criticism of Islam is entirely acceptable and indeed justified, in a tolerant society where we enjoy freedom of speech.

You genuinely don't understand why someone who had just watched their parents, their partners, their children killed in the name of Islam, might be offended by these events being commentated on by someone openly advertising Islam?

well guess what, if its part of your religion then? catholics are not allowed to eat pork, yet would you eatit if it were offered on camera. or would you put aside your religios beliefs and and eat it? Or if you had to declare, "I believe in the holy 28 Gods" on camera because you were being recorded as ou entereda cult's building? there are many examples, and i am pretty sure ou wouldnt put your beliefs aside.

Im not ignoring anything. 1) no and 2) no. It is neither in the name of the true Islam that this act was done and neither is she representing the same islam as those radicalists. Massive difference. And NRA i know nothing about so cannot comment.

Trump was an example. Just because he thinks a certain wayit doesnt mean the rest of the US do too, excluding his supporters. Same for IS and muslims.

To my understanding i have read that the Prophet taught his men never to hurt a prisoner during war as they are unarmed and cannot do anything to hurt them. He actually told them to treat the prisoners as guests, to make sure they had food and sufficient accommodation. But i would be interested to read this verse so if u dnt mind could u send me the hadith line/verse that Muhammed states what u have told? Thanks.

Ur final comment, sure i can understand that and i deeply sympathise because then these people whose loved ones have been hurt hate Islam. But they need to understand that muslims, especially those in the UK, are not radicalists and we actually oppose ISIS. But we are not going to take off our scarves and religious wear just because it may be seen as insensitive. U talk about freedome of speech, then freedom of right and the right to wear something as we wish is also a freedom which the Western culture swear by. Thus why is it insensitive for someone to wear a scarf. Again all im saying is she didnt have guns or the IS flag on her scarf so what did she do that was so insensitive. Everything is used as a political ploy nowadays and if people are beginning to oppose even wearing a scarf, which u realise muslim women who choose to wear it are always going to wear it and they are not going to take it off just because a certain situation is sensitive, then where is it going to stop? Is the western freedom only going to be allowed for the western white people? Just a thought so plse dnt anyone take offense. Thats the last thing i want to do. I just wanted to put across a point.

You're arguing semantics; an ISIS supporter would say that their Islam is 'true' and that you're a kafir for going against the word of Allah. What makes them wrong and you right? They did commit these crimes in the name of Islam, in that they claim that Islam justifies their actions.

Certainly. Try reading Surah An-Nisa 4:24, Surah Al-Mu'minun 23:1-6 and Sahih Muslim Book 8, Hadith 3371, for just three examples. The first verse, in the context of the whole teaching, is actually encouraging men who felt uncomfortable about raping prisoners that it wasn't sinful.

I'm actually not suggesting she was being insensitive. She was just doing her job, as she was told to. I'm suggesting that the broadcasters were insensitive in not choosing a reporter who wouldn't potentially offend people at a very difficult and traumatic time.

You do raise a valid point in freedom of speech, which is why I'm certainly not condoning banning the Hijab more generally. However, my personal opinion is that certain public-facing professions - things like politicians and news reporters, which have a duty to the public - should not be displaying their own personal biases when working. I wouldn't consider it acceptable for a news reporter to wear a badge professing their support for a certain political party, for instance.

How is she representing a view that she does not believe in?

I didn't say she was representing the same view, rather the same religion.



Yet I never said that so good to see you attacking strawmen as so many religious people do. She follows the same tenets of Islam as they do and presumably also believes the Quran is the infallible word of God. Difference is she doesn't put most of it into practice whereas ISIS do.



Christianity's Old Testament is also very violent. However, most Christians believe it is no longer applicable to them and that the Bible isn't the perfect word of God. Thus, they are not compelled to follow its every command and can also contextualise it meaning they don't need to follow rules that were clearly relevant to a past time.



I believe Jesus taught Christians to turn the other cheek.



Which Christians believe Jesus said it's OK to hurt someone in revenge?! I've certainly never come across any and you are taking this discussion off track. We were talking about Islam and the Quran, not Christianity and the Bible.



Depends on who's defining "wrong". To ISIS what they're doing is "right" and what you're doing is "wrong".



These glib statements are often made by people who haven't actually read the texts in question and who don't want to cause controversy in the classroom. A simple reading of Islamic and Christian scripture reveals a lot of brutality and violence.



This is just whataboutery. Yes, they're all violent! Other religions being horrible does not excuse Islam also being horrible, does it?



I'd imagine they say the same about you.



I don't believe ISIS are "right" because I don't believe Islam is true, regardless of the interpretation. I am saying that from a non-Muslim perspective there is no reason to believe that your interpretation is any more valid than ISIS's.

Well whatever u like to think. I get it now. All muslims are the same whether they are ISIS or not. Kus the religion is the same. Cool thought frame.

Nowhere did I say that so you're attacking another strawman.

Not attacking. Just find it interesting how the religion can be the same, the views different yet everyone under the religion will be labelled as the same.

Well the religion is the same, is it not? They both follow Islam, just because they have different interpretations doesn't mean they're following different religions and doesn't mean they don't have anything in common.

Yes but IS isnt right in what the think is the right version of Islam. Its so obvious. I mean Islam is fair and sure some of the rules are a bit harsh but its the same with the law in any country. By actually saying that they can justify themselves ur saying that what they do is okay. Its clearly not. They t stuff outta the context in which it was written. Anyone can do that. To follow the law of Hod we have Imams for a reason and they learn the truth of the Quran and thus can relate it to normal people like me. Thus we learn what the Quran teaches within the context it was written.

I get ur point i guess. But it still seems a bit unreasonable for her to get all the rubbish. All she did was report what happened. She didnt put across any biased views that could be taken the wrong way so I eont think its fair to say she shouodnt have been reading the news.

And thanks for giving me the sources etc. Ive never heard of what u said about the rape thing so it will be interesting to see what thats about.

I get that but its not like she is representing or supporting ISIS or any radical beliefs and activities.

The terms Islam and Islamism are at times being used inaccurately throughout this thread. This confusion is very much a microcosm of the confusion rife in British society. It is also the confusion which leads to debates such as this one we have here over the use of the hijab.
They are not interchangeable terms and do not mean the same, or even similar things. To confuse a Muslim displaying their commitment to Islam with a commitment to Islamism is a wrong assertion, and more importantly a dangerous one.
The hijab, and also such dress, conflates political and religious issues. It is not one or the other, and its purpose means different things to each wearer. To assume or even hint at this reporter's decision to wear it representing sympathy to extremism is very damaging to inter-religious relations.

So is she advertising ISIS? Because funny enough I didnt see her scarf in the colours that represnt them, neither was she holding a gun or anything else that could cause people to interpret her as a supporter of their (ISIS's) view of Islam.

But this is the perennial question, isn't it. By publicly wearing a hijab in such a high-profile position as a national network news anchor, what beliefs is she representing?

One would assume that a Muslim who feels that, despite the many "moderate" scholars and interpretations that state that the hijab is not in any way compulsory, she is obliged to wear it, she subscribes to a more conservative, retentionist interpretation. It would not be unreasonable to assume that such a person believes that the Quran is the infallible, immutable, universal and timeless word of god in its entirety, and in which case they do indeed support some rather extreme practices and ideas.

If, however, she is a revisionist moderate who views the Quran as somewhat historically and culturally relative and some of its contents as unacceptable and unapplicable, then she would not insist on wearing a hijab on national TV, especially when covering an Islamist atrocity.

You're clearly not familiar with the contents of the Quran and sunnah then.
Also, your argument is only comparative. It is entirely possible to be "the most peaceful religion" and still be unacceptably violent. A .22 short round is "one of the most harmless bullets around", but it will still kill you.

The irony here is that the likes of ISIS are not doing any twisting - that is the point! They are taking the words of Allah and Muhammad at face value. They are assuming that when the Quran or sunnah says "X", they actually mean "X". The "twisting" is being done my modern apologists who attempt to portray Islam in a more favourable light, more compatible with modern society by claiming that when Allah or Muhammad say "X", they didn't really mean it, and they need men to explain it for them.
Sounds kinda unlikely for an omnipotent god and a perfect prophet, don't you think?

What does "radicalised" actually mean? Having read the Quran, sunnah and classical tafsir as well as the arguments of modern apologists and scholars, it would seem to mean simply "rejecting moderate revisionist Islam in favour of a classical literalist and retentionist interpretation".

Ah, but who is to say what is the "right way"? After all, Muslims have been fighting each other for 1400 years over which is the "right way". You only have to go onto the ISOC thread to see that sectarian hatred is still alive and well amongst supposedly educated young Muslims.
Surely the "right way" is the way that was written in the Quran and practiced by Muhammad?
What do you consider to be the "right way"?

Ah yes, the utterly logical "I do not support Islamist extremist terrorism, and if you doubt that, I will go and join and extremist Islamist terrorist group".
Typical of the utterly flawed thinking of the ill-informed apologist.

And BTW, there is not "so much hate towards Muslims in the UK". Muslims possibly enjoy greater freedom and security in the UK than in most other countries in the world. There is certainly plenty of criticism of Islam, but that is a completely different thing.

They may not accept their violent practices, but they still accept the iseology that justifies their actions.

For example...
As a Muslim, I assume that you believe that the Quran contains no errors, and that it is forbidden to reject a single ayah.
The Quran (along with sahih hadith) explicitly permit the use of female captives for sex.
I also assume that you condemn ISIS's use of captive women for sex.
So, in this situation, you are supporting the principle of using captive women for sex but condemning anyone who actually does it.
Kinda hypocritical, don't you think?

It seems that it is you who is misunderstanding terms. Of course "Islam" and "Islamism" are not interchangable, as they are different words with different contextual applications. "Islamism" is also not a synonym for "violent extremism". It is merely a word that describes the practice and implementation of Islam.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary
1: the faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam
2: a popular reform movement advocating the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam
Or the Freedictionary1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.
These things (in bold) are not restricted to violent jihadists, they also apply to many ordinary Muslims. So we can see that it is a word that can be applied to the Islam of the ordinary Muslim who believes in the absolute truth of the Quran.

Political Islam and spiritual Islam are not mutually exclusive, you seem to have a problem understanding that. Many women are apolitical but wear the hijab for spiritual reasons. No definition of Islamism that anyone takes seriously equates it with Islamic faith, because in that case, all Muslims would be Islamist. Get back to me when you learn to differentiate between the two because at the moment you are no better than those who throw the word "Islamophobia" around as opposed to using it in its proper context (as much as I dislike the word itself).

In practice, "secular" generally means that religion has no influence in the public sphere. It could reasonably argued that those in positions of public responsibility - teachers, civil servants, police, politicians, etc, and yes, newsreaders on national networks, should not be making overt displays of religiosity.